Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> It's likely to be used by SQL generators if nothing else, and I've
> been known to use it as a very convenient shorthand. It would seem
> to me like quite a strange inconsistency to allow order by n with
> some qualifiers but not others.
That's pretty much how I feel.
> -Original Message-
> From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-
> ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Dunstan
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 1:43 PM
> To: Tom Lane
> Cc: Peter Eisentraut; pgsql-hackers
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ORDER BY 1
On 04/18/2011 04:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
This came from a review by Noah Misch a great while ago:
test=> SELECT b FROM foo ORDER BY 1 COLLATE "C";
ERROR: 42804: collations are not supported by type integer
According to SQL92, this should be supported. Do we want to
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> This came from a review by Noah Misch a great while ago:
> test=> SELECT b FROM foo ORDER BY 1 COLLATE "C";
> ERROR: 42804: collations are not supported by type integer
> According to SQL92, this should be supported. Do we want to bother? It
> doesn't look hard to fi
This came from a review by Noah Misch a great while ago:
test=> SELECT b FROM foo ORDER BY 1 COLLATE "C";
ERROR: 42804: collations are not supported by type integer
According to SQL92, this should be supported. Do we want to bother? It
doesn't look hard to fix, so it's really only a question o
